The MPLS-OPS Archive

[Puddinhead Wilson <puddinghead_wilson007@yahoo.co.uk>]

Hello,

Some questions:
> Some thoughts on this thread -
>  
> LDP signaling provides more flexibility for VPLS
> because it allows different characteristic setting
> per PW such as: 
> • 
> –1. QoS setting – e.g., different PWs can have
> different reserved BW and if needed the BW can be
> adjusted dynamically (based on time of day). Also
> congestion management requires feedback for a PtP
> link 
> 

LDP? CRLDP? or RSVP-TE? there is no qos term in LDP I
have seen.

I still think that RSVP-TE is the best label
distribution protocol and BGP works best for
discovery, but there is no UNI spefication of RSVP-TE
in MPLS world. Or atleast it does not come till my PC
yet.

the property of "signalling a path when needed with
the kind of constraints as desired" is nice about
RSVP-TE.

Though if packet "no call setup switching" is what it
will be, I still do not understand what was wrong if
the labels were unique end to end :)

> 2. Sequencing: Sequencing is a PtP operation in
> nature. Sequence numbers among different PtP can
> have different “start” values. Also re-synching of
> sequence numbers are PtP operation. Furthermore,
> sequencing can be turned on/off on a per PW basis
> and allowing the operator finer control over it. 
> 

sequencing of what?

>  3. OAM: It is important to be able to check the
> health status of each PW separately because one PW
> may affect the status of the whole set (Emulated
> VLAN) 

In the implementation of LDP I have seen for L2VPNs,
LDP just carries the end point identifiers, more like
map this vlan to this label, map this  port to this
"group" and each PE then assigns the group a label.
RSVP-TE is still the preferred way to setup LSPs to
the PE loopbacks.


> 
> 4. Data-plane failure: there can be scenarios where
> an operator may want to reset a PW (bring down and
> up). In such cases, a new label is desired to be
> assigned (in case there is an issue with the label
> itself). This is inherently done with LDP protocol;
> whereas with BGP protocol and label-block scheme the
> same label gets assigned over and over again.

I dont know about the "label block" schemes, I never
did really understand it. could someone clarify it?

All you need are end point identifiers? is that right
or wrong? and all you need are ways to map end point
identifiers to some signalling method, RSVP-TE or LDP?
is that correct or incorrect? the rest just seems to
me as beating around the bush.

Why a PW/LSP cannot be setup between point A and point
B, where A and B are end hosts, using just 1 Label/tag
per hop is beyond my comprehension, considering people
hardly even use stateless/connectionless protcols any
more.

<nerdtalk>
But seems everyone wants to do something new now that
computers have done printf ("hello world \n");
</nerdtalk>


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

-------
The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml